tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 10, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EDT
to define adequate margin of safety? admin mccarthy: it is in the statue given as a policy judgment i would've made. safety? definition as you try to wrestle with what it means? i assume you use scientific methodologies and perhaps sound economic as you try to rep. brooks: what is your determine war are rather vague terms. admin mccarthy: you will be able to see in the rules a very good discussion of what my judgment is and the basis. it will not run the basis of cost. it is a health standard to protect public health. cost is not a consideration. rep. brooks: how can you say health is not a consideration of cost? it is a function of what we can pay for? admin mccarthy: a way what we estimate to be the illustrative cause. in terms of how you determine is not considered until implementation. it is a function of what we can pay for? rep. brooks: are you going to share with us today your definition, your understanding your methodology of what the phrase "adequate margin of safety" means. admin mccarthy: that will be shared when you see the final
rules. that is when i explain it in a goes through -- rep. brooks: you have no judgment a you cannot explain it to the committee? admin mccarthy: there is no specific definition i can offer you. a judgment that will be well documented by the science. rep. brooks: how long has the epa been working on that? admin mccarthy: since we created the clean air act. rep. brooks: what year? admin mccarthy: 1990? rep. brooks: decades later you still do not have the definition. admin mccarthy: it is not apply to that away. chairman smith: thank you. the gentleman from
virginia. rep. beyer: thank you for being so patient and gracious this morning despite rather combative nature of the questioning. our chair, my good friend and distinguished chair claims the epa has severely damage our economy. how do you reconcile that with 64 straight months of job growth and 12.8 million private sector jobs and tripling of the stock market. if there is -- not perhaps better to look at the infrastructure bills we failed to pass, immigration and inability to do tax reform rather than blaming it on the epa? admin mccarthy: one of the things to recognize when you look directly at epa, you look at 70% improvement in air pollution air reduced at
70%. we know how to do the rules in a way that is not just not contrary to the job growth but can fuel it and become part of it. rep. beyer: i know use text messages a great deal most because my children will not return my phone calls. i am not allowed to talk on the phone so mice have texted me back and forth. i read and delete. i cannot imagine doing anything substantive in 140 characters. also if i do not delete, the chain gets longer and longer with my daughter. really, any reason to think your 6000 text messages were anything but trivial and non-consequential? admin mccarthy: two i saved because they were a record. other than that, the best of my recollection, family, friends, i will be late to
something. texts does not constitute a substantive conversation but accommodate me keeping in touch with my children. that is a reside started with it. we do not discourage the use of text messaging. when we do use it for government purposes, a process and policy in place to make sure those are preserved. that is the policy reflected here. rep. beyer: do you have a rule to allow children to contact their parents? admin mccarthy: i would. rep. beyer: 70 parts per billion. you are only asking for perhaps a five parts per billion decline. 6.33%. again and again we hear we could cut the budget by 5% or 10% and will not make a
difference at all. 70 parts per billion is what a robust science said is needed for our health. why the hysteria about a 6% cut? we heard the conservative think tank project or job loss. can you talk about the economic value and the health benefits and how compares to the potential cost? admin mccarthy: the health benefits are dwarfed -- the economic cost we are projecting. we are talking at a level of 70 we are talking about significantly more benefits. the most important benefit of this is you are telling the american people what clean air is supposed to be. the benefit immediately is that individuals who have kids that
have asthma will know that there and call it to -- let me put another way they could take a look on what to the air quality is today on their weather channel that we helped provide and decide whether the kids should go out and play. the biggest value is individuals can protect themselves, their kids, their elderly parents and make decisions for themselves while we give states lots of time to think about what other cost productive ways to achieve that over many years. some of these states will not face the challenges for a long time. you do not worry about the implementation. if that means you are not a given up all the information to protect themselves and their kids. that is what this is all about. rep. beyer: thank you. that is what this is all about.
rep. beyer: thank you. i yield back. chairman smith: the gentleman from illinois. >> first yield to the chairman. chairman smith: i want to make two points. text messages to staff is official text messages and the administrator to say all the one or two out of 6000 were personal is simply laughable. as well as statistics i wish the gentleman had mentioned in his list is we had the lowest labor participation today in america in 38 years. i thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding that. >> i do appreciate you being here and the job your agency is tasked with. the last time you were here it is important to realize the good work. x2x we could not add any lanes to these thoroughfares here.
my constituents and i do agrea that we nead smart reasonable scains based regulations. with the botched mercury rule we saw on display two weeks ago, i'm not sure that has been the case with your agency. i also expect your agency to work with our states and counties as a partner not a pal pa tin. and when former officials from an administration consider e.p.a.'s efforts to work with other federal agencies to be a sham i can tell you that it does not appear your collaboration with our state agencies has been any better. i would like to enter into the record a letter dated march 17, 2015, where they call on the e.p.a. to retain the existing ozone standard set in 2008 which still has not been fully
implemented. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i would also like to point out the effect the change standards will have on the state of illinois and the counties i represent. the center for regulatory solutions released a study shows e.p.a. regulations, the most expensive regulation in history, will cost significant burden not the chicago area economy. as we can see from the slides above with 21 counties out of attainment i'm worried about the overall impact. if you change the second slide you will see how bad this is. we are putting 73% of the state's already fragile g.d.p. at risk. last year illinois enrolled twice as many recipients on snap benefits than created jobs. just last week the illinois black chamber of commerce hosteded a symposium on the economic and impacts it would
have on chicago and minority communities. it is clear this will have a disparate impact on low income communities. this should be a quick answer. but do you consider your agency's efforts to collaborate to be better worse or the same as your efforts to collaborate with other federal agencies such as dough? >> i think we collaborate very well. >> that's not what we are hearing and in some ways it reminds me of when i was in school and we would have group projects and there would be one person who wouldn't do any work. the teacher would ask how it went. everybody would put in a slip of paper saying this person didn't carry their weight and that person would say i did the whole project myself. that's kind of the approach that i feel is happening right now. >> the studies that you are quoting didn't even study this
proposal. >> the studies i'm quoting are talking about the impact just released today. we can make sure you have it. this is dealing with increased proposal. your proposal. we'll make sure you have it. again, we just got it. i haven't been holding it back from you. it's efforts to collaborate to be better something that if we would have gotten it sooner we would have gotten it to you sooner. in the letter i submitted the clean air act requires conformty to support activities are consistent with plans. the chicago area is the largest rail hub in the country. according to the center, freight traffic is expected to increase by 80%. how does e.p.a. eakspect the most financially troubled state to implement these standards when the agency will not consider the full potential cost of implementation? >> if i could just point out, the health standards sets up a process where states develop plans over time and there is significant time to achieve
this standard. >> my time has expired if you could respond in writing. >> the vast majority of the counties will be in -- >> mr. hogan. >> that's an important thing to remember. this is not on the backs of the state. it is a partnership between the national government and the states. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> administrator thank you for being here. representative george brown former chairman of this committee portrait, hangs over there, partly responsible for the establishment of the e.p.a. and the passage of the clean air act. my constituents and i have seen first-hand how the e.p.a. can improve air quality and advance public health. in my home district of riverside, california, according to the state of the air 2015, a report from the american lung association still has tremendous struggles with ozone and particle
pollution. we are situated down wind from my other colleague from california. and we typically have low class lower income folks who can't afford homes along the coast. i am glad to hear that my colleagues also care about poor people and middle class people. i don't understand why they are not so concerned about the wealthy people along the coast whose property values stand to be put in jeopardy by global climate change. but i'm struck by the fact that the e.p.a. regulations save us money in the long run by improving public health. and i am struck by the comment that health is what we can pay for. but i'm also struck by a comment that a senior citizen once made to me. you can't place a value on your health. a study by the e.p.a. shows that by 2020 the benefits will
outweigh the cost. the clean air act has helped cut down on asthma, heart disease. by to 2020 is expected to prevent 17 million lost workdays because people are healthier. i want to put this hearing in context. i'm afraid my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are exploiting the public's frustration with the economic downturn to push an anti-environmental war on science. for me it is particularly offensive because the people in my area greatly suffer. we were ground zero for the mortgage crisis. it was a financial services meltdown which caused this lack of participation in the economy, not environmental regulations. we propose to solve our situation. they propose to solve our situation that was caused by a financial meltdown by deregulating our -- not regulating the environment or taking these controls out of the people of my area benefit from those the e.p.a.'s
regulations. the ozone and the plats we would suffer greater i claim if we did not have e.p.a. improving our air quality over the past 20 years. now, i want to ask you a question. do you believe that the e.p.a. -- what's the balance between listening to elected politicians the opinions and knowledge of the elected politicians versus independent scientists? >> when you make a decision like this you must listen to the independent scientists and base it on peer reviewed science. that's what the law requires but what we would agree. >> i think the american people would say let's trust the opinions of independent scientists. they're unelected. but they are also not subjected to the various different kinds of interests. >> but this body indicated that is how we should do it.
>> the congress set it up that way. >> yes. >> now i understand that the power plants burn coal. one of the serious emissions is mercury. and mercury has s linked to neurological damage in children. >> that's correct. >> i understand who tends to be located and inhabit the areas around coal plants tend to be low income people often people of color. >> yes. >> is that true? >> that is true. >> as much as -- i am glad to see the majority cares about the plight of poor people but i am wondering whether or not they care about the health of poor people. it seems to me that it is contradictory to say we care about poor people being able to buy carbon but not also take into conversation the fact that we have many, many
disproportionately poor people living around these power plabts. i only have 20 seconds left. can you comment about the ability of your regulations that generate greater economic activity? >> it is actually a well-done rule for the environment. it is actually extremely supportive of the foundation of a growing economy. we're talking about premature deaths, asthma attacks, kids not able to go to school, families not able to go to work. so we actually believe, and i think the data shows, that our rules are so cost beneficial because they give so many more public health benefits than they do cost the economy. and if you structure this right you generate activity in the economy to grow new technologies to grow new jobs. i think that is extremely important to remember. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida.
>> thank you mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, a 2004 department of environmental protection report claims from the florida department of environmental protection due to the relatively large geographic area covered by forests and other vegetation in the gulf area of florida, biogenic voc volume tile organic compound up to 80 to 90% of the total voc's emitted on a typical summer day. another florida department of environmental protection report states e.p.a. also should consider whether natural background concentrations would preclude sclyance with the e.p.a.'s proposed standards in certain geographic areas. for example, e.p.a. estimates that 70 to 80% of the
seasonable mean ozone levels in florida are attributed to background contributions. so my question is, how could they comply with a new requirement of 65 to 70 if nature gives them 70 to 80? >> let me assure you that states are not held responsible for reducing emissions that are not in their control. the clean air act is very clear about that. so there was a great discussion frankly -- >> ok. you say that's a fact. i will accept that. >> thank you. >> with regard that. so there was to the clean power plan, are you at all concerned about the increasing cost of electricity in causing many the poor which my colleague just referred to just a moment ago he seemed so concerned about, and also seniors to make difficult choices as to which necessities in life they can afford due to the increase in their electric
bills? and they may possibly be extreme? >> let me be clear. i am always concerned about the economic consequences of our rules. and we seek very much to make sure that those are as minimal as possible. if you take a look at the carbon pollution plan that's why we made it so flexible so states can design their own plans to be sure electricity could be so reliable and affordable. our projection at the time of the final goal in 2030 the final standard you're actually looking at a decrease in what people have to pay a month for their electricity. >> how much could the senior citizens of florida, how much could they expect their rates to go down because of this new rule? >> they can expect their bills to go down by about 8% in 2030 according to our projections. >> 2030. ok. what about between now and 2030?
>> at most the increases is a gallon of milk about $3. >> a month. >> for what? whar what volume? >> on electric bills. if you pay $100 today it could be as much as $103 i believe in 20 2025. but over time that goes back. >> did i hear you say that of the 6,000 messages you received or sent on your government-issued blackberry, and your government-issued i phone, that only 1 or 2 of those were official business? did i hear that correctly? >> only one or two of those were actually records under the federal records act that should be preserved. now, there were exchanges about i'm late for this meeting or that. those are trance tri and those are not to be preserved. that's how the federal records act works because they're not substantive. so the two substantive ones i
know about i preserved. >> so out of 6,000 you only had two substantive transmissions? >> we highly discourage through policy the use of mobile devices for the very reason that we need to make sure that we are preserving records. so we highly discourage it. and frankly i do not use it to my recollection i only started using text because my kids wouldn't answer my phone calls. >> did you receive or send any message to any special interest zpwrupes i want rested in environment -- groups interested in environment from your i phone or blackberry? out of 6,000 you're telling us you never once sent a substantive message or received a substantive message from a special interest group? >> to my recollection the two that needed to be preserved were preserved.
>> just -- you can say yes or no. >> that's my best answer. >> you cannot tell me that you never received any substantive message or sent one -- >> are we talking about text message? >> anything in your blackberry or your i phone. >> e-mails would have come in. but those are preserved. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we will go to the gentleman from california. >> thank you chair. and thank you administer. did you want to follow up on that? >> i just wanted to indicate that out of the two text messages that i preserved, i think one was from an outside constituency and environmental advocacy organization. that's why i preserved it. but that's what i was trying to recall.
but beyond that i didn't know if his question related to e-mails which is in the system and preserved. >> thank you. administrator, in california we don't really have the choice of having a debate about whether or not we believe that climate change is occurring. we live with a climate that is drastically changing. we have the worth drought in our state's history. the good people of my district have put upon themselves drought restrictions or conservation measures of up to 30% conservation. and so i was hoping you could elaborate on how extreme weather events are conservation impacting states and the types of challenges goths will face. >> i am happy to because the changes that we are already seeing in extreme weather in the united states include
heavier downpours. just getting more intense, heat waves are becoming more frequent and intense, intensity frequency and duration of atlantic hishes. winter storms. we're talking about floods have decreased in the southwest but they are really increasing in the north and east. we have dilutes we have not seen for the last 800 years that we are -- so we are seeing already extreme results. and we have recently put out a report that i would encourage you to take a look at if we don't take global action what the world is going to look like that we're handing to our children in the next 50 and our grand children in the next 100 years. >> i want to touch upon renewable energy. last september the "new york times" feeltrd germany and its erts -- efforts with offshore
wind. they will very shortly receive 30% of their energy nom renewable sources. there are many other countries close behind. but one of those countries is is not close behind is the united states. we're still around 10 to 12% from renewable sources. that's largely -- that is not wind and solar. would you agree that the best way to reduce carbon emissions would be to make investment aside wind and solar.from policies but in the long run would be to make investments in renewable sources that provide energy?
knowing the scientists you deal with some of the biggest brains in the world across our great country, do you believe that we are less capable as a country than germany in achieving 30% of our energy? >> that's the president's frustration is that we have an opportunity to lead the future, and that future would be better for us economically. we are growing more jobs in the solar sector than any sector of the economy. we can do better. >> i want to thank my colleague from new york for letting me jump ahead of him. i yield back. >> the gentleman from kentucky. >> i would like to start with some questions and a discussion
we had when you were hear in 2013. i asked if the e.p.a. was looking into regulating methane emissions from cattle. i don't expect you to recall that so i will read to you the transcript of our conversation. i asked if i asked if you were aware that methane emissions from cattle, can you assure us today that you are not investigating that? and you said i am not looking at that. and then i asked, nobody in the e.p.a. is? and you said not that i am aware of. now we are talking about methane emissions from cattle. that was in november of 2013. now, in march of 2014 just four months later the president issued a climate action plan called strategy to reduce methane emissions targeting a number of industries for methane emissions reduction including agriculture including cattle. and then one month later, april
2014 five months after you and i had this discussion, the e.p.a. put out a document talking about the sources and things of greenhouse gas emissions. there's an entire chapter related to beef cattle dairy cattle. if i were to ask this question again today would you have a different answer? the question is, is anybody at the e.p.a. looking at or investigating methane emissions from cattle? >> well, sir, as you teed it up in this discussion you started by talking about are we regulating or considering regulating. i believe that was the context of my answer and it remains exactly the same. no. >> you are not? >> no. >> and you can give us that assurance. you have no intention of regulating methane emissions. >> the president is not suggesting that.
he is suggesting it is a source of carbon emissions that lends itself very well to work with to work with agriculture to develop technologies to reduce that. e.p.a. has been engaged in that for a long time. >> maybe like you've been working with the wood boiler wood stove industry. >> we have been. >> exactly. i want to ask you about that. so you issued the final ruling on that in february, i believe. do you think it is wrong or does it bother you at all if you prom gate a regulation that most americans are against? >> if they get a chance to see it and understand it it would bother me very much. >> me too. so the irony of you being here today -- we are going to have a vote on the floor about your regulation that you promulgated on wood stoves on the appropriations bill for your department. i am going to make a prediction. i am going to predict that the
people's house votes not to fund that regulation because the majority of our constituents don't support it. and i'm also going to predict it's going to be a bipartisan vote. >> i just hope you take a look at it because we worked with the industry very well. it's about working with them to give them the time to take advantage of new technologies that will make it better for everybody. >> i'm glad you worked with the industry because i've been talking to them, too. do you know what it is going to cost to update their model to comply with your regulations? >> well, all i know is that we worked on the timeline that was extensive for those small businesses. >> somebody knows what it's going to cost because you've published that. >> i just don't have it. >> it is $1 million per model. let's say there are 50 models out there. what we're talking about is $50 million cost to this industry. these are small manufacturers making a product. by the way, are you aware that their product is eligible for a renewable energy tax credit?
i find this very ironic, because what they produce is a carbon neutral source of heat for middle income and low income americans that the government provides a tax credit for yet you are adding 50 million of cost just for one type of these heaters. >> sir, the emissions from wood stoves is work that we have been working with, with states, for a long time. >> i would argue -- >> source of emissions that don't need to be emitted if we work to provide them opportunities. >> would you acknowledge that each state has different requirements and they're unique? >> source of emissions that don't need to the industry in the states wanted e.p.a. to do a rall >> which is why that smooth those requirements specifically for the businesses. >> the industry is not happy about spending millions of dollars to upgrade their products because of a one size fits all top down rule from the e.p.a. i thank you and i yield back.
>> thank you. the gentleman from new york. >> welcome ambassador mccarthy. thank you for your leadership. and -- >> i was looking for you. >> thank you for your leadership and your obvious grasp of the issues, is a tremendous benefit to e.p.a. the hearing today is again a revival of hearings we have held before proposals to strengthen standards to protect public health and the environment and claims that meeting these will be too costly possibly not achieveable and in general a serious drag on our economy. i have a number of questions for you. the clean air science advisory committee was created with the 19 77 clean air act amendment.
the first report on ozone came out in the mid 19 0s and there have been a number of subsequent reviews over the past 35 years with much new research since the original report. have they found that ozone is less of a health risk than 19 0 science determined it was? >> no, sir. they found it is increasingly of concern. >> does it contribute less to other environmental problems? for instance, damage to plants visibility, and other effects? >> no. we're realizing just how much damage it actually causes. >> so if anything research over the years has confirmed that ozone is a health risk and an environmental problem. is that correct? >> yes. have past standards been criticized on the basis of their projected costs and benefits? >> always. >> i think your testimony points out that we have been able to achieve cleaner air act grow the economy as we have strengthened the standards. is that correct? >> that is correct.
>> any reason to believe we cannot keep that record going? >> none. >> will the states have flexibility to determine how they might meet new standards in the most cost effective way? >> that is exactly the choice we are giving them. >> climate change also has the potential to exacerbate existing health conditions such as asthma and impact vulnerable populations like our children and elderly. how do you respond to those who ignore the role climate change has on public health? >> i ask them to trust the skibetses. it is a space and technology would embrace skibes. also, what it is a majority. it is overwhelming majority and we need to take action now. >> thank you. i hope that a committee of science kind of ongoing health risks are expected if we
do not act and current climate trends continue? >> if you look a report that we put out we are talking about tremendousof ongoing health loss of lives, huge economic consequences, environmental damage if we do not take global action. and u.s. leadership is essential to allowing the world to get the momentum they need to address this significant problem. >> how will policies at the administration is seeking to implement address the public health impacts associated with climate change? >> well, we are going to be reducing carbon pollution which also brings with it significant coal benefits. the significant opportunities to reduce other traditional pollutants. but the one thing we keep forgetting is climate change is actually impacting the economy today. don't tell me it isn't in california, it wasn't when hurricane sandy hit in new york. these are costs to us today that are only getting worse and worse. and if you look at action on climate, and see the kind of economic benefits it can provide that will not just
protect us from escalating carbon but grow a carbon low carbon future with new jobs that is the goal post that all of us are looking for. that's why we design the carbon pollution plan as flexably as we did. >> thank you. i certainly as a new yorker would associate with the comments you just made. as a new yorker and one who worked at the state energy that is exactly the choice we are giving them. >> climate change also has the potential to exacerbate existing health conditions such as asthma and impact vulnerable populations like our children and elderly. how do you respond to those who ignore the role climate change has on public health? >> i ask them to trust the skibetses. it is a majority. it is overwhelming majority and
we need to take action now. >> thank you. i hope that a committee of science space and technology would embrace skibes. also, what kind of ongoing health risks are expected if we do not act and current climate trends continue? >> if you look a report that we put out we are talking about tremendous loss of lives, huge economic consequences, environmental damage if we do not take global action. and u.s. leadership is essential to allowing the world to get the momentum they need to address this significant problem. >> how will policies at the administration is seeking to implement address the public health impacts associated with climate change? >> well, we are going to be reducing carbon pollution which also brings with it significant coal benefits. the significant opportunities to reduce other traditional pollutants. but the one thing we keep forgetting is climate change is actually impacting the economy today. don't tell me it isn't in california, it wasn't when hurricane sandy hit in new york. these are costs to us today that are only getting worse and worse. and if you look at action on climate, and see the kind of economic benefits it can provide that will not just protect us from escalating carbon but grow a carbon low carbon future with new jobs, that is the goal post that all of us are looking for. that's why we design the carbon pollution plan as flexably as we did. >> thank you. i certainly as a new yorker would associate with the comments you just made. as a new yorker and one who worked at the state energy research and development authority i was involved with the regional gas initiative. and the state of massachusetts department of environmental protection head dr. david cash said that that it not only gets you the environmental benefits we are looking for but really tremendous sparks the economy. massachusetts >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i thank you. abed thank the administrator again for her awesome leadership. >> the gentleman from oklahoma.
>> i would loik to start by showing a brief video clip here. the tremendous outreach is one thing. but when you use this outreach intentionally to generate nearly 1 million positive comments on your waters of the u.s. rules, and not only using that outreach from activist groups outside the organization but i have in front of me a news letter from an e.p.a. manager and it looks like joig 5, and it says e.p.a.
is planning to use a new social media application called thunder clap to provide a way for people to show their support for the agency's proposals. so now you're using social media tools to advocate for your agency's proposals. and this thunder clap program is a social media aggregator that includes facebook and twitter and a host of other social media tools. and you're using your employees to advocate for your proposals and activating outside activist groups. then before the senate epw committee you testified that the e.p.a.'s waters of the u.s. rule is justified because nearly 90% of the comments favor the proposed rule. so you're hijacking the comments process. then you're using that data to justify your rule before the senate e.p.a. committee or epw
committee. i would like to ask you, to your knowledge, did e.p.a. engage in a legal analysis to determine whether using thunder clap in this manner violated the anti-lobbying acted prior to engaging in that activity? >> there was no question in terms of the agency that we had done and were doing nothing that constituted lobbying. it would be against the ant lobbying act. it is well within the boundaries set by the federal government. >> would you answer yes or no? i'm asking you the question, did you get any legal analysis before using thunder clap and pressuring your employees to use thunder clap? i've got the news letter here. >> lobbying act. it is don't pressure employees. >> if your agency is using a news letter telling people to sign up for thunder clap and promote the agency's proposal, would that not be an ethical violation where you're using
your employees to advocate for your proposed rules? >> let's dissect this if we could, sir. the question you posed to me was whether or not i used a social media with lobbying. it was not. it was education it was outreach it was getting people engaged. it was exactly what everyone tells us to do. >> no. this is a different level because there is an email here from an employee that was very concerned about feeling that kind of pressure. and that employee contacted the regional judicial officer assistant deputy of ethics official. and there is agreement that this is a national concern and it says there is agreement that it is a problem. >> that's why i wanted to dissect it. the second question you asked was about an employee who took that and actually copied it in and shared it with others in the agency. which was in fact inappropriate and that person has been -- >> it was an agency news
letter. was it not? >> not that i'm aware of. he's been counseled and as far as we know nobody reacted. >> from the weekly dd news item. i would like to know what the weekly dd news item is and why it is coming from a regional director. >> it is a division director who made a mistake. he was counseled. i don't want you to get confused by e.p.a.'s effort to engage people in the work that it is doing and get them active in considering how important clean water is. >> you do realize that your own regional judicial officer assistant deputy says that this is a problem. my next question for you is what are you doing about that problem? >> the information is as far as i know he's been counseled to not do that. it should not have happened. but that has nothing to do with the fact that we use social
media. >> there are two concerns here. one is a potential violation of law with the anti-lobbying act. i'm a navy pilot by trade. i fought in the wake. imagine we use social media. if president bush said we need our department of defense employees to advocate for removing shalmed. how do you think that would -- we would feel pressure as employees of the department of defense to do that. now, this is something that your agency has been involved in. so the anti-lobbying act is of concern to me and we're going to look further into that. number two putting pressure on employees to promote the waters of the u.s. rule. maybe that's not a violation of law but it is certainly a violation of -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you. a couple of questions for you yes or no. do you know what state has been the number one exporting state in about 12 to 14 years running
in the country? >> no, sir. >> texas. do you know who has been the number one job producing state in many years producing more jobs than all the other lesser 49 states combined? >> could i guess? texas. >> what do we have for her johnny? do you know who has the second largest environmental regulatory agency in the world? >> texas? >> you got it. serving on the texas legislature i served on the environmental regulations committee. do you know how good texas' economy is compared to the other what i call lesser 49 states? >> i do not. >> it's way up there. finally, do you know what state has its own electedric grid? >> texas. >> you're almost batting 1,000. you're doing a good job. >> don't trick electedric grid? >> texas. >> you're almost batting 1,000.
you're doing a good job. >> don't trick me. >> texas does -- you don't want that. texas does really well. mr. chairman, i have five chairman, i have five articles here about the proposed rule i would like to submit for the record. >> wousmed. >> administrator without objection so ordered. >> you made the statement not a pollution control strategy. do you remember making that comment? >> would i make that? >> in front of the energy and commerce committee. >> i don't recall. it's a carbon pollution. >> today it's been your testimony with and your exchange with congresswoman clark and tonko here that we have a "moral obligation." is that accurate? >> to act on climate. yes. >> so at some point you said that e.p.a. was not empowered by the legislation to consider costs. you said that today also. >> not on the carbon pollution. >> not on carbon pollution. >> we have to consider costs.
>> ok. so if you consider the costs -- and i believe that this has been titled the most costliest regulation in history. why is the e.p.a. be posing these costly regulations on the american people when you admitted to the energy and commerce committee it is really not about protecting the environment? >> i don't know the context of that, sir. but this is not a one of our most significant cost rules. it actually is enormously beneficial. >> ok. well let's go on then. in 2008, then senator obama was running and he said "under my plan, cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. " so the president is looking forward to driving up -- do you remember that comment by the way? >> i've heard. >> have you seen the you tube?
>> i may have. >> so you know that was on his mind to drive electricity prices up. by is the way thaves in january of 2008 in an interview by the san francisco chronicle. now, the chairman had the u.s. energy information do a study and recreptly came out and said that in fact under the clean power plan elected trissty prices will be driven up. are you aware of that? >> i am aware that there are studies that say that. yes. >> but i'm talking about the energy information administration. >> yes. >> and you know they're bipartisan. and you know they don't consider costs. they just look at the facts. they're not beholden to any government agency. is that a true fact? >> that they are independent. >> that's right. >> they were asked to do this. >> thank you for saying that. you read in the study they said that a family of four could see thousands of dollars increase in their electricity prices. i'm glad to hear that there's some glad colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are
glad that we are looking out for poor people. i've been in many homes in 4 yorse where people could not afford air conditioning repair. and when their bill goes up 25, 7, 10% it hits them hard. so we look at this very closely. i'm extremely familiar with energy costs. so when the energy information administration came out and said -- and other stake holder zpwrupes, by the way that the clean power plan and other will increase electricity prices for the american people and let me add based on my experience of 34 years as an air conditioner contractor watching power very carefully, it's going to disproportionately impact low income families. do you agree with that? >> we're working very hard to give the states the flexibility to not have that happy. >> have you ever been in a the homes of low income people where they have had to spend money on air conditioner that was inefficient? it's kind of sad. isn't it?
>> well, what we're hoping is that this will not only protect them and their public health. >> let me move on. i'm running out of time. in fact, i'm out of time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. now the gentleman from ohio mr. johnson is recognized. >> thank you. i've got a lot of ground to cover. so i would like to -- i'm going to ask you some very specific questions. they're not the questions themselves are not very complex. the answers are pretty much yes or no answers. can we have an agreement that if i ask you something that you don't understand, ask me for clafrleication. and i will go back and clarify the question. but i want to move through these so we can get through them as many as we can. is that ok with you? >> i will do the best i can. >> great. i want to go down the road of the independentsy.
we've heard the term independent science. we have heard that spoken here several times today. according to news reports, including a recent "new york times" article, the e.p.a. has a pretty cozy relationship with third party environmental groups such as the sierra club and the nrdc who are attempting to influence agency policy. given these stories -- and i'm sure you've seen some of them -- is it e.p.a. policy to request that these third party groups write reports to support the agency's position? >> i don't know of any agency policy. >> great. let's have slide number one come up. according to this email obtained by the committee, then e.p.a. policy director michael gu writes that "maybe a report or two showing that no new coal
plants are being built might be helpful in order to provide cover for a draft e.p.a. rule on new fossil power plants. " are you surprised that the e.p.a. policy director -- this is a pretty high position. requested that the nrdc draft a report related to an e.p.a. rule? have you ever seen that before? >> no. >> so does it surprise you that the policy director would ask an outside group to do something like that? >> well, i -- i assume he's had communication. >> would you take that and get back to us about how that conflicts with -- if it's not your policy, if it's not the e.p.a.'s policy to do that did he violate. >> you asked me a policy that told people to do that. >> would you say based on this that the e.p.a. does indeed have a cozy relationship with these outside groups if the agency is asking them to write the e.p.a. policy director -- this is a pretty high position. requested reports? >> all i know is that our rule making process is transparent. it is row bust.
>> well, no it is not transparent because you are not getting comments from outside groups other than like the nrdc. do you think it's appropriate that the nrdc is providing cover in their reports for proposed rules? >> i think it is appropriate that e.p.a. continue to do rule making the way it does -- >> i understand that your job is to do rule making. the question is how tran parent and how independent is it really. is this the only time you are aware that an e.p.a. official has ever requested a third party group a report regarding an e.p.a. rule? >> have you ever had this happen before? >> i can't -- >> have you ever requested a report from a third party group asking for a report while at the e.p.a.? >> i can't -- >> let's have slide number two come up, please. it appears that e.p.a. policy director michael gu maintained a very e.p.a.? >> close relationship with third party groups even inviting employees from the
league of conservation voters and nrdc to his house for an annual party known as the gu-fest. according to the invitation shots of liquor off an ice luge and copious amounts of food and alcohol. included is an apparent fake quote from president obama stating, even better than killing bin laden i'm jealous i don't have an obama fest. are you familiar? >> i have never been to a gu fest? >> but are you familiar with it? >> i'm aware -- >> would you agree that inviting these third-party groups from the e.p.a. policy director, the league of a conservation voters, would you agree that shows a close cozy relationship with these folks? and do you think it's appropriate for someone that's responsible for directing e.p.a.'s policy to host a party that includes attendees attempting to influence the agency's parties?
>> i would agree that michael gu knows a lot of people -- >> no. do you agree it's appropriate? >> i have no reason to believe that this was about influencing -- >> oh, really. let's go to slide number three. mr. chairman i am so sad that we are out of time because i have a lot more that i wanted to cover. but out of deference to my colleagues i will yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy thank you for being here. i want odd to ask you a bit about the waters thank you. the of the u.s. rule. do you believe that it expands the e.p.a.'s jurisdiction in this area? >> no, i do not, sir. >> you do not believe that. >> no. >> do you feel that you will
need additional funding to meet any new responsibilities based upon this rule? >> hopefully it provides clarity to actually reduce the level of efforts on all parties including people who actually want to get work done and need a permit. its goal was to reduce clarity as well as continue to protect the waters that are necessary for drinking water. >> do you believe the rule was successful in providing clarity? >> it certainly that was its intent and i believe we did. >> i want to read you some quotes from someone who had 20 years of experience in the field. the gentleman who testified before actually want to our committee bob kerr. his comments were unfortunately the rule falls well short of providing the clarity and certainty that the regulated community seeks. this rule will increase federal
regulatory power over private property and will lead to increased litigation permit requirements and lengthy delays for any business trying to comply. equally important, these changes will not significantly improve water quality because much of the rule improperly encompasses water features that are already regulated at the state level. how would you respond to those comments? >> i would disagree with every one of them. >> ok. i want to read another quote to you. the only thing that is certainly is how difficult it will be for me to provide jurisdictional determinations and secure permits for my clients. this rule is so convoluted that even professional consultants with decades of experience will struggle to determine what is jurisdictional. how do you respond to that statement? >> the reason we did this rule was because many in congress and outside stake holders asked
us to do the rule. >> i understand because in your comments you make certain -- you mentioned your goal is to provide clarity. but i guess i'm trying to reconcile that with someone who has 20 years of experience as an advising businesses and people who are trying to comply with the law. that is telling u that it does not provide clarity. >> you would have to speak with him, because this rule actually says what is in, what is out, boundries, the way you need to look. those things have not been clear for 15 or more years. >> in the area of -- i wanted to ask you about ditches. you made a point that ditches are not included as jurisdictional in the final waters of the u.s. rule. is that correct? >> no. i have made it very clear that we have -- we are only including ditches that act as
tributeries that are important to protect. and we have added specific exclusions to make it clear that ditches that only run once in a while that are only there for irrigation purposes, all of those issues that we maintain all of those exclusions and added some for clarity purposes to try to get the ditch issue off the table. >> so if farmer or a business or a local government believes their ditch is exempt, do they have to ask for an exemption or can they consider that they have an exemption? >> it is exempt. and the other thing we did was to very carefully and more narrowly craft what is a jurisdictional tributery so anyone can look and make those determinations so it would limit the amount of time of the
core and provide certainty to the farmers and ranchers. >> so if someone would limit the amount of time of the core and provide certainty to the farmers and ranchers. >> so if someone they are exempt. >> the only reason you would ever come to the federal government is if you want to pollute or destroy a wetland believes they are exerment or a water body be jurs dictional. >> when you say we -- >> an individual who wants to polute or destroy a water. >> but if they don't believe it's jurisdictional? >> then they wouldn't call us. what we tried to do was make it as clear as possible so farmers and those in agriculture would actually know and feel comfortable that what they were doing was absolutely all right. >> and if you disagreed, you
would not have recourse on them? >> we tried to make it clear. >> thank you gentlemen. the gentleman knight is recognized for his question. >> thank you. i want to follow up with a recent discussion. if we go back to our farmers and say that if you look at these ditches and you believe you are not poluting these temporary waterway ditches then you're ok and there's no reason why the federal depoth should come on your property and check these out? >> we hope we have provided clarity on what constitutes a tributary and what does not. >> since all our texas folks are yelling and screaming about their state i will talk about california.
in a recent article, i will read quickly indeed in some localities, especially in the western state the new standards are producing new levels of ozone in other words it's beyond local control. while the e.p.a. believes the terms to address these concerns are adequate, some believe they are not and are not limited to specific geographic regions. we know we have an awful lot of background or other things that happen to our state that we don't have any control of. countries and different things that happen to our ozone. by this statement in this article, is that a true statement? are we -- is the exclusionary rule for states like
california, are we getting our bang for the buck on that? >> i think they are referring to what we call exceptional events referring to things that happen that are out of state's control. so we have recently done one that clarifies dust issues, all the different ways that you can have dust storms arise. and that seems to have resolved a lot of issues and there are issues with wildfires. that happens to be rulemaking that -- so it doesn't interfere with a state's ability. there are other tools we can use as well. >> that will follow up on another article that i would like to bring into the record. and we have many control district air pollution
districts that are very difficult. our cousins in san joaquin are two difficult ones because of the mitigating factors and the background that happens to these two but it was prauth up from the san joaquin that standards from the ozone and standards from 2.5 require different attainments and their solutions or worries are sometimes when they get new regulations or attainments that their old ones do not fall off and that they have to continue to make those reports and those kinds of standards. is that something that we can correct at the e.p. a.? >> well, we are really trying to make two things happen one is to increase the ability -- so they don't do separately p.m. and ozone. but we also have to take a look
at how we can more effect ily and more quickly deal with designations so those that have achieved the standards have the ability to not be captured in the imply minuteation world. we don't want states to stop doing what they are obligated to do that got that achievement there. but it's hard to -- >> i would ask if you could allow the states to maintain these attainments by working with the standards of the state and working with their districts whether it be california district or others. it might be more helpful. and secondly, so it may be that we can understand what they are doing and so they can continually look pack and do
the things that may have been required of them in year's past that may be helpful. >> i know how hard they work and how much they care about the same things we care about. >> thank you, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mrs. mccarthy, i would like to put something up on the screen, show a picture. this is houston texas, which i have in my district, party of. it shows that twice a day traffic for commuters for 2 million people in the city of houston, twice a day, under your regulations and the clean air act for traffic conformity, we would not be able to expand or add new lanes since most of my districts including harris county, which we are looking at
here is not in attainment under the current standards much less under the new proposed rules. let me ask you, do you think this is a good idea when houston is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country that we cannot add any lanes in those thoroughfares? >> i was looking to see if i see myself in there. i've been there. >> me too. >> to work through the traffic conformity issues, it is not a carte blanche ban on doing new road work. >> so you're saying that the city of houston and county of harris would be able to add lanes? >> it doesn't mean you cannot move forward. >>i got you. i'm going to remember that. i'm going to tell the folks
back home that we can add lanes. let me tell you how many jobs are at stake with this new regulation and would cost the american people $140 billion every year, with a b. e.p.a.'s new regulations would cost my home state of texas $2al -- $286 billion over the next years in gross state product losses. it will cost us $347,322 lost jobs per year. 1430 drop in average household consumption per year and $39 billion, with a b from my constituents a year to operate
their vehicle. this is one of the costlyess issues. i have one of the most industrialized districts in the country. if one of my constituents loses their job because of this regulation what would you say to him or her? because these folks are needing to provide -- needing their jobs to provide for their families. and how can you justify this? give me a short answer, please. >> well, i don't know what numbers you're looking at. >> they came from the national association of manufacturers. >> they might as well have recycled them from the last time we did a study. >> why are they saying they cannot come into compliance and thy will have to shut their plants down and this will cause them to lay off employees?
as we heard mr. webber say a while ago in the state of texas, we have provided more than 50% of the jobs in country over the last five years. this will eliminate a lot of that. >> we followed prorpte economic impact work. it's available to you. but i think one of the things that no one seems to vecks that the vast majorities across the united states are actually going to be in attainment that is revised. >> i beg to differ with you, miss mcathey. we have a map here that shows immediately we will be out of attainment. in fact, it's so severe that even yellowstone national park will be out of attainment. immediately. because of the new ozone regulations that you're proposing. >> i'm happy to take a look at it, sir. >> i hope you will, and i yield
back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> and just to clarify states and localities losing transportation funds from the department of transportation for new roads and bridges, it's in an area of non-attainment. that affects mr. babbin's district as well as my own district in oklahoma. i now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer for 5:00 minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, administrator mccarthy. from the e.p.a., your agency wrote e.p.a. projections show the vast majority of u.s. counties would have to propose standards just with the rules now under way, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> then is it also correct that the e.p.a. is just earlier this year releasing guidelines to implement the 2008 rule? >> that is actually true sir.
>> then why in the world are we talking about a new standard which the e.p.a. based on a past hearing admitted the technology doesn't exist to meet this new standard. why are you implementing a new standard when you haven't even implemented the last one? >> well, sir, there are still a number of standards and this is actually an estimate of -- >> ma'am, i don't -- >> it's an effort to look at the science. >> so congress -- are you doing it because congress told you to do it? >> yes. >> your authorization for this is from congress, is that correct? >> it is. >> so if scongs told you not to do it, you wouldn't do it? >> i didn't say that. i'm just saying i'm implementing your laws. >> so if we change the law, you won't do it.
thank you. i would like to talk about the impact on low-income families. i grew up dirt poor so i get this. i'd just like to point out. you ever aware of it, and the national black chamber of commerce -- let me read you what they said. >> the e.p.a. regulations if they will put up slide one, please. >> the e.p.a. regulations will increase hispanic poverty by 23% and black poverty -- it will show the hispanic and black again disproportionately impacting black and hispanic households. this shows the projected job losses. ok? for black families by 2025,we're talking 2.2 million
job losses. by 2035, -- if you will put up the next slide, this shows the increase in the poth rate for black and hispanic households and reading from the black national chamber of commerce it reads lit increase hispanic poverty by more than 23% and black poverty by more than 23%. ma'am, i don't know how you justify this because it does create an enormous economic burden and it's having an enormous impact on jobs. the economic policy substitute -- institute which is labor's think tank points out that 29% of the current unemployed have been out of work for over six
months. we're looking at a report from gala that shows that prior to 2008 there were approximately 100,000 more businesses starting up than closing since 2008 we are now seeing 70,000 more businesses close than start up, and the united states now in terms of how we rank in terms of other stralsed nations and entrepreneurship and industrialization, we don't rank second or third. we rank 12th and i want to quote from an article in "usa today" that in trying to explain these two in their words terrifying trends, the death of so many businesses and the berth of new ones, and i sat here now since we started this hearing listening to you basically deny there's an economic impact.
you've even asserted there's an economic benefit. we've had numerous hearings on the ozone rule and power plant, and there's been several people testify this is all justified for a health benefit but here's a study, and mr. chairman i'd like to submit these if i may. here's an article in the american journal of public health that makes a point that the single biggest predictor of -- in terms of respiratory health is income. and obviously, i think you would agree wouldn't you? that income is directly related to job status, would you agree with that? >> it sounds right. >> thank you mr. chairman i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and ms. mccarthy.
we're near the end. we're the low guys on the totem pole. i chair the subcommittee on oversight and we have asked numerous times for documents from your department and your office and continually as mentioned earlier it -- we rarely get those but i was informed as we were walking in coincidentally we did receive a bunch of documents just before your testimony here today and you actually mentioned in one of your responses that you have produced 15,000 documents to the committee if we could bring up that document but what i have is an illustration of one page of 2,000 of these pages of documents which is incoherent garbage. it's garble. it makes no sense. i want to bring to your attention this is 2,000 of the 15,000 pages either this is insulting that there's no respect for this committee and
we're just going to send them these depinds of documents or just we are going to shut them up. but an impact on the american economy deemed instant an executive order 12-8-66 imposed in 1993 by the clinton administration requires that they provide an analysis of which impacts and benefits are analyzed and reasonably feasible alternatives. yes or no administrator mcathey when the e.p.a. sent the waters review for review in trustworthy, did they deem it to be economically significant meaning it would have an economic impact of greater than
$100 million? >> i don't know the answer to that but give me a second and i'll look it up. >> so if something had an impact that seems something that we would know right away. >> actually, the challenge for us is that it has no direct impact on the economy. the costs come in when it's actually being implemented. the rule that determines jurisdiction not the rule that requires action. >> did the o.m.b. determine whether it was economically significant? >> i don't know, sir. i will have to get back to you. >> if it did determine it was economically significant would the e.p.a. have conducted a regulatory analysis that was required? >> yes. >> that was required. yes, we would have. can we bring up slide number one? i'd like to show you a few
emails roareding the rule and its classification by o.m.b. of being sfancht. this slide this email the office of general counsel lawyer stephen and acting deputy of the office of water dave evans discuss o.m.b.'s determination that the rule is significant. david evans writes identified indirect costs well above $100 million a year and i think e.p.a. has claimed the effects of the rule should not be triggered to etchingt those rules and jim at the o.m.b. seems to have decided otherwise so it's clear the o.m.b. initially determined it was well above $100 million impact so is it the e.p.a.'s agreement that it should not be deemed
economically significant? >> you should not be surprised that we often have back and forth with o.m.b. and i wouldn't determine that to be -- >> ok. let's go to the next slide. the e.p.a.'s employee nancy stoner and kim can a -- kim kapakus know it may be -- but there are some that haven't had an r.i.a. which is required according to the executive order we cited earlier but he is stating here that there are some economically cited rules that haven't had an r.i.a. they are checking with the office of policy to see if there was some agreement at the political level that we don't have toal conduct an r.i.a. required by law. the response to this email states good news.
tamika and sandy talked to ken and ken said it has been agreed we do not leave an r.i.a. let's leave it at that. so there was a political decision made that you don't need to do that law said you need to do what you have to do so this shows e.p.a. made a political decision. not to the -- who made that decision? who made the political decision that you don't have to follow what the law says you have to follow? >> for the record gentleman's time is expired. >> i would like to submit all the documents i have for the record. >> thank you. the gentleman from louisiana mr. abraham is recognized for 5:00 minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and chairman i would also like to submit a letter 22 health care professionals signed that would argue against the e.p.a. stance
on benefits of the decrease of ozone layer. >> it is so ordered. >> ms. mccarthy, i am a scientist and would appreciate any raw data you can give me, because i can determine them and make my own decisions regarding the raw data that some on the other side of the aisle said we were not probably i guess able to sbretcht but i assure you i can. so if you would get that to me -- >> actually we have provided the data the chair requested and it's available for you already. >> i will look at that. theo thing our ranking member johnson referenced the integrity of the e.p.a. and i just want to make a comment on that. as you are probably aware that last week there was an article that came out that said that your senior counsel for air and regulation that you referenced
in this hearing was given by the centers of american progress, a far left organization some talking points for journalists when you were or when he was trying to move up a position, so to speak. so again, as a position as a scientist that looks at raw data and makes decisions, i'm troubled, to say the least when one of your people, who i am sure they are quite capable of coming up with their own opinions, are being influenced by those on one side or the other. now, saying that. you also have referenced increase tornadoes, hurricanes. i'm from louisiana. and i assure you we know hurricanes. but last week a nobel-winning fizzist who used to be on
president obama's team of environmentalists came out and said president obama is dead wrodge on wrong on this global warming data. so if you would give me the data i would be happy to eve them. let's go back to asthma. again, you have referenced this. as a physician and scientist i do read a lot of epidemiology journals and prior to this hearing i referenced volume 156, issue10 and when i was looking at your testimony and what the e.p.a. has wanted ts to tout is if we don't reduce these owes enlayers we are going to have an increased incident of asthma and upper
respiratory conditions. let me just reference beijing china which has one of the worst rate information pollution, despite decreased ozone layers in the united states -- i have treated thousands of cases of asthma in the louisiana delta myself. and we have some pretty clean air down there. we are in the farming community. and i understand the american lung association has kind of gotten on the bandwagon for the e.p.a. as to saying the increased ozone layers numbers could contribute to that. well, it could. anything could. but if you look the objective data you have to take into consideration tests with dust mites and pollen count, these types of things.
so my question is do you know what increase in asthma there has been in the last decades? i've got a slide if you want to look up there. you see asthma rates have dramatically increased despite decrease in ozone so i would ask for your comment on that. >> well, i don't think the scientists at this point are saying asthma is caused by ozone. the issue is that it's exacerbated. >> but objective data cannot prove that. and i could talk to any scientist you want to give me objective data but give me some good points to argue because i have a chart that shows the opposite. >> the data those the impact of asthma. >> you can say that but you have got prove that in the scientific community, and these numbers just don't add up.
and that's my point. i don't mind looking at good numbers but i'm looking at an asthma increase with decreased owes on levels. >> we have not made -- the scientists for us have not made a connection between levels of ozone and the prevalence of asthma. it exacerbates the condition. >> you can say that but you cannot prove that. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> so what we are going to do now is move into a second round of questioning. we have a vote on the floor of the house right now. it's a single vote so i am going to chair the vote to here for the second round and will be replaced when one of my colleagues comes back after having voted. so moving into the second round, ms. mccarthy given some of the comments we've heard so far. it is threw cities,
municipalities, states, they can lose the department of transportation funds if they are not in compliance with the e.p.a. that is absolute lady true, do you agree with that? >> they can. >> and what that means is if they can that means they are being bullied. this is federal bullying and what my constituents in the state of oklahoma -- they are abhored by this federal bullying saying you are going to lose your department of transportation funds if you do not comply with >> that is not a rule making. it is in the law. it has never happened. >> mr. chairman, i am the only person on this site and i have to vote. can you recess long enough for us to vote? >> we will keep rolling because we all have somewhere to go. >> the vote supersedes and the rule says we can recess for a
vote. >> we have plenty of time. we will get there. i'm going to reclaim my time and move forward. as far as the economic impact, people say this will somehow grow the economy and the rules and regulations will grow the economy. this has not been historical precedent. in november 2014, you had an op-ed and you said the clean air act requires the epa to update air-quality standards every five years. repeat -- requires the epa to update air-quality standards every five years. in your testimony today, you said that the clean air act calls for the epa to review the standards. you acknowledge there is a difference between update and review? >> if you update it on the basis of science.
>> can you keep the standards the same? >> absolutely. >> you don't have to update the standards. you can review them and keep them the same. >> have them updated by current science. it could result in the same standard. >> when you're doing your advocacy's, some of us are concerned that you're using different language than what you use when you testified. you said you have to update the standards, that is different than review the standards. >> if you see it that way sir, i will try to be more careful. >> we've heard testimony before this committee that your agency proposed ozone's rule will be the most expensive regulation american history. in light of the supreme court's ruling, when can we expect the epa to withdraw its requirement since economic costs were not properly prioritized when formulating the role? -- the rule?
>> we will be moving to finalize by october of this year. >> are you suggesting that you are not going to withdraw the proposed ozone role? >> i am not not intending to withdraw the rule. >> has the cost-benefit analysis been taken into account? >> yes. >> i think it is clear that we will have to start over from the beginning given the supreme court's ruling. with that, i'm going to go vote. i would recognize the ranking member. she has departed. i will recognize mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you director mccarthy. -- or administrative mccarthy. when we ended the last round you assured me that you had
never been -- had never attended a goo fest. are you familiar with it? >> i got the last invitation. i only received one and i did not attend. >> would you agree though that the epa director of policy. this is the person who directs the development of policy. having a personal private relationship, a social relationship at a thing called goo fest, shows that the epa critical members of the epa, have a close relationship with these outside, third-party organizations? >> is there any denying that? these are some of the people influencing policy.
we have already established that you have asked this group to do policy papers for the epa and now you have the epa policy director her in social settings with these folks. let us go for slide three. in another e-mail the senior vice president of government affairs at a conservation organization. i will show you more evidence. i will demonstrate this inappropriate relationship. she thanked him for inviting him to the party. according to the white house visitor logs, she has visited the white house on 71 different occasions. administrative mccarthy, how many times have you been to the white house? >> a lot. >> more than 71 times?
>> i don't know. she is older than i am. >> are you surprised that this official has visited the white house, 71 times? >> i don't know the woman. >> but you know the position she has. she is a vice president of government affairs at the league of conservation voters. would you say that environmental groups have a close relationship with the white house? >> i really do not know. that is a very big organization. >> according to news reports, an e-mail was obtained by the
committee, this gentleman, back to the director of policy, attempted to skirt transparency. you talked about how transparent your rulemaking processes. he tried to skirt transparency and his ties to environmental groups i arranging meetings with the r&d see at the starbucks in the jw marriott hotel on pennsylvania avenue in an effort to prevent participants in the meeting from signing in at the epa meeting and creating a public record. it is appropriate in your opinion for an epa employee, particularly the director of policy, to schedule meetings without -- with outside groups attempting to influence the agency's policy decisions, at a starbucks? >> sir, i do not know anything about what was being attempted. >> somewhere along the line, the buck stops here.
why do you think the epa's policy director set up such a meeting at starbucks instead of the agency? >> i would not want to guess. >> i think the american people want to know what it says about the epa's relationships with outside groups if agency officials set up meetings at coffee shops instead of their office. the american people would be very concerned of the cozy relationship between the epa and these outside advocacy groups. i have heard repeated this morning, and you have echoed it, how other countries around the world have made much more progress and becoming greener with investments in renewables.
i would encourage you talk to our european friends. you might be shocked to find out that some of our european friends would be increasing their mix of coal in their energy profiles. when we asked them why they do that -- they have a big carbon emission reduction to do by 2030 as well. i asked the president of the energy union -- how will you a conference this? and why are you going to a higher mix of coal question mark he said our ratepayers are businesses in our residential customers have reached the tipping point. they are in a longer willing to pay these exorbitantly high prices in energy costs. it's making us noncompetitive in the world economy. madame administrator, that's what your agency is doing to our country by not considering the economic implications of the rules you make.
the supreme court has just ruled it is unreasonable for the epa to take that position. i would remind you of that. with that, i will yield back. >> thank you for yielding. we have a number of members that have more questions to ask in representation of their district. with that, we will stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair.
>> the committee on science, space and technology will reconvene. at this time, the chair recognizes mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, i think you made a point that cost was not a major consideration at one point in your testimony. do you not think that considering the link between income and costs and the number of jobs that we lost and preponderance of evidence, do you think we should not take into consideration costs? thank you. ms. mccarthy: i believe that jobs are important and need to be considered.
i said in the development of an ozone standard, the law, and it has been told to us by the court, precludes us from looking at costs as standards. that does not mean we don't look at costs in the implementation cost. >> the supreme court decision involving the mercury rule that those are different statutes that at the same time, though, i think the point made in the supreme court decision that it is unreasonable to apply regulations without taking into consideration the cost and the economic impact should be relevant to the discussion we're having about ozone and the clean power plant and the waters of u.s. i would encourage the e.p.a. to be more conscientious in that record. -- regard. particularly how it impacts low
income families. i got a little animated earlier. i was out of time. i'm happy to have the second round of questions. to make that connection. it is particularly important in the context of how it impacts minorities. i talked about the report from the black chamber of commerce and also the southern leadership council, which i believe was founded by martin luther king or he co-founded it. their president testified to the same effect that what the e.p.a. is doing is going to have a disproportionate impact on black and hispanic families. i would say across the board all low-income families are going to suffer tremendous harm from these regulations. what bothers me about this more than anything else is the reluctance of the e.p.a. to hand over the scientific research peer review.
the reports that i have entered into the record have been peer reviewed. i think we need total transparency here. you know, we talk -- you talk about what you want to do in the context of a cleaner environment. you made this point that the g.d.p. has gone up since the clean air act, 1970. more specifically since 1980 g.d.p. has gone up 467%. vehicle miles traveled, which vehicle emissions contribute to ozone, have gone up by 94%. populations increased by 38%. energy output has gone up 22% but emissions have gone down 50%. i made this point in a previous hearing that the air is cleaner than it has been in 50 or 60 years, yet we continue to see an
increase in respiratory illnesses, particularly asthma. my point is this is a bridge too far. i think the e.p.a. needs to scale this back. i think you need to allow the states to implement the 2008 standards. they were already in the process. they were waiting on input from the e.p.a. for their state implementation plans. i think this is clearly a bridge too far. i'm very concerned about the collaboration that the e.p.a. has. i think the over involvement of outside groups because it appears to be agenda driven and not sound public policy. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. this time i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. thank you for being here. we have the rare opportunity to have you here. a lot of people have a lot of questions and there is a distrust in general, especially
of your department. there is a couple of questions that we were just getting into when time ran out. let me recap this -- i showed an email to where the o.m.b. initially stated that the waters of the u.s. would be well above the $100 million trigger of economic impact. however then there was slide two. if we could bring that back up. we were just getting into this email to which after the office of management budget said it was well above the $100 million budget impact. this email said that jim pendergrass, office of water employee said nancy and ken know that a regulatory impact analysis may be necessary, but
there is some economically significant rules from e.p.a. that have an i.r.a. -- that have not had. they are checking with the office of policy to see if there was some agreement at the political level that we don't need to conduct an i.r.a. the response of this email states good news. they talked to ken and he said it is agreed we don't need an i.r.a. r.i.a. let's leave it at that. it appears to show they decided not to conduct the i.r.a. if it is above $100 million. the first email said it was well above. not just margin. who made that decision? ms. mccarthy: i apologize, sir. during the break, i was actually able to check back in the office. it was determined to be a major rule because it did not have direct but it had sufficient indirect costs and an i.r.a. was conducted.
>> an i.r.a. was conducted? ms. mccarthy: yes. it was determined to be a major rule. there was no behind-the-scenes work that was banter back and forth between the staff. >> from what i understand you conducted an economic analysis. not an official i.r.a. but you're stating there was an official i.r.a. done. ms. mccarthy: my understanding is it was treated as a major rule. apparently i misspoke before. >> so the question is executive order requires you to do an i.r.a. if it is above $100 million. which originally o.m.b. said it was above $100 million. your office chose not to do an i.r.a. but do another analysis. and according to the email, that was a political decision made. my question is who made the decision to not go forward? ms. mccarthy: sir, this decision was obviously o.m.b. made the
decision because they have to sign off on the rule and ensure it meets all of the policies and the requirements. i don't know anything more than what you're telling me. >> according to the emails, it leads us to believe that someone at e.p.a. went back to o.m.b. and asked them to reassess whether or not this was significant. if there was a significant impact. ms. mccarthy: and in this case it was determined to be a major rule and an economic analysis had to be done. >> but not on i.r.a., which is required. what i'm getting at is there is a lot of distrust and we're having a hard time building some trust here. ms. mccarthy: yeah. i apologize, sir. i'm happy to get back to you. but my understanding is that this rule did not have direct costs so it was allowed to do an economic analysis because it
would have been difficult to know how you would have done a broader i.r.a. when it had no direct costs. >> one of the reasons we have o.m.b. because i think if left to e.p.a. -- in fact the email says you have done other rules that you know is significant but you haven't done an i.r.a. ms. mccarthy: i don't know what they are referring to. i'm telling you it is in the record. >> if you could get back. i would like to, if you could get back how they changed their analysis to go from well above $100 million. ms. mccarathy: i will get you the that analysis. >> can you tell me when we'll have that information? ms. mccarthy: i'll go back and find out. do the best i can. >> we would like to know who made the political decision.
ms. mccarthy: there was no -- as far as i know, sir. >> according to your emails it was a political decision. let's leave it at that. i see i'm out of time. ms. mccarthy: this was an appropriate way to meet our policies and obligations. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for continuing to stay with us on this. i just wanted to follow up on some questions about the ditches that we were talking about. ms. mccarthy: it has become my favorite. >> i think your goal was clarity but i think there is a lot of confusion out there. i guess the question i have is do you anticipate that a farmer, business or local government would not face legal action for not applying for a federal permit because they believed their ditches were exempt. so in other words, if someone believes sincerely that their ditch is exempt, will they not
face legal action or would at some point the e.p.a. rule differently? ms. mccarthy: people are expected to know that if there is a question, they should ask. but e.p.a. and the army corps are not in the business of going around and as you're implying and chasing people for this. it really is a matter of trying to provide clarity. the farmers and ranchers i know care about drinking water as much as i do. they are not interested in polluting or destroying it. they are interested in maintaining that for their own benefit and their own kids. this is not an opportunity to do anything more than give them more tools and more certainty and the process will continue to work as it has always worked. >> would you be willing to clarify that in statute? because what you're telling me today is your interpretation of the rule.
some day someone else will be in your position. many people throughout the country will be implementing this rule and will have different opinions on that. and even though you say they won't be chasing people around there is an enforcement obligation that actually does lead them to chasing people around. and so my question is would you be willing to clarify that in statute so there is no ambiguity on that? ms. mccarthy: i don't know what i'm clarifying here, sir. all i'm telling you is how the current system works. which is that people are obligated to ask when it is a concern and it is a marginal call. they are supposed to know they have to protect those waters. we have made it as clear as we possibly can, which waters should be protected. they should use that judgment and ask if they are uncertain and everything will be ok. >> i'm going to continue to work with you on this. the goal is clarity, but there is a lot of confusion out there
and when there is confusion it is going to result in a lot of unintended consequences for costs for people and legal interpretations and consultant fees. ms. mccarthy: one of the things we're doing which might be of interest and i would be happy to work with you on it is we're trying to develop a question and answer for folks asking questions so it is available to them and it helps guide them if there is lack of clarity. we will never get 100% clear but i think we tried to get as far along as we could in making it as clear as possible so they can do their business without concern. >> ok. thank you. i want to follow up with some of your comments -- i can tell you are a person on a mission. the planet is something -- i read a quote, one of your quotes from the forum on u.s. energy and science policy where you talked about there are a lot of
things that i worry about. i worry about the obligations i have to the planet. do you remember that the same? -- statement? ms. mccarthy: it was kind of a fun moment. they asked me what i would do if i had all the time in the world, i explained i would hang out with my children more, but after i deal with the planet. it was sort of a -- humorous. >> because it does when you talk about moral obligations and you talk about climate change. ms. mccarthy: yeah. >> it does have sort of the appearance of almost a religious fervor about this. i guess one of the things i would like you to consider because i know you're very passionate about this. but if some of the analysis is accurate in terms of the economic costs. ms. mccarthy: yes. >> you have a background in public health. ms. mccarthy: yes. >> i would like you to consider the public health impact when it comes to people losing their jobs, having lower incomes
depression. suicide, people who are unable to pay for their medications because they are out of work. these are the realities of these kinds of in my view some of the draconian regulations that may have certain unintended effects but also have some that are unintended. i see my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. unfortunately there is going to be more procedural motions on the floor and since all members have asked questions. i know you're going to hate to hear this. we're going to go ahead and adjourn. thank you so much for being here. ms. mccarthy: thank you very much. >> thank you. host:[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.
operational challenges for the international space station with witnesses including former astronauts and representatives from nasa and boeing. you can see the house science and space technology subcommittee hearing starting at 9:00 eastern on c-span two. later, the congressional internet caucus examines internet defamation lawsuits and whether they challenge the freedom of speech. that is live at noon eastern also on c-span two. >> conservative pollster and author on the trends and technology in the millennial generation and how the political parties are vying for the increasingly crucial voting block. >> when you take a look at where people's eyeballs are going, it used to be folks were focused on the television. political advertising became heavily focused on ads but technology has changed so when you walk into a room of
60-year-olds, they are looking at their phones. for folks in the political world who want to reach the next generation or reach into the future and understand what the future will look like, candy crush may be fading but something new is always popping up -- finding your way to get your message in front of people is important. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. this week on first ladies, we learn about lucretia garfield and mary arthur mcelroy. lucretia garfield was an educated woman and a believer in women's rights when her husband james garfield was assassinated, she returned to ohio and ensured his legacy by making their home into an early version of the
presidential library. chester arthur, a widower, becomes president and his sister, mary arthur mcelroy fill the role of first lady and establishes white house social etiquette used by future first lady's for decades. lucretia garfield and mary arthur mcelroy this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. >> on c-span today, "washington journal" is next. the u.s. house returns at 9:00 to work on the bill to reauthorize national institutes of health funding for three years. coming up in 45 minutes congressman bobby scott of
virginia is here to discuss the no child left behind bill and other education issues. at 820 a.m., look at the impact of the environmental protection agency. our guest is congressman bruce westermann of arkansas. >> at 10:00 a.m., we will see the confederate flag come down. we are a state that believes in tradition. we are a state that believes in history. we are a state that believes in respect. so we will bring it down with dignity and we will make sure it is put in its rightful place. ♪ ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] host: that was the south carolina governor nikki haley. the confederate flag being removed will take place at 10:00 today. even as that happens, sharp debate over display of the flag and the confederate symbols in new orleans and louisiana and discussions are going on whether statues and